Arguments that lead nowhere, proposing no solutions and draining your energy while giving you no new knowledge are brain spam too, and unfortunately, we have too much of those in modern life.
Just say no spam.
Just look at any set of siblings, who can range from smart to dumb-as-rocks, from beautiful to homely, from athletic to klutz, all with the same genes.
That happens because they don't have the same genes. Genetic recombinations between the same two subjects (mom and dad) don't occur the same way each time. On the contrary, they tend to be quite chaotic and unpredictable.
Read more here: http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=138
If what you are saying is true... then humanity is doomed unless it can get beyond the kind of tribalism that, in my opinion, may be comforting to people in the tribe, but is far more trouble than it is worth. Far too often tribes decide their neighbors should be exterminated because they are different, or they decide that already-resident "invaders" in their tribe should be pushed out or eliminated ("ethnic cleansing"). I understand why this happens, but it's ultimately stupid, because I think it undermines our long-term prospects for survival as a species (see below).
It seems that you're a bit confused - 'tribalism' is about preserving certain ethnicities and the environment of which they are a part of and it doesn't imply by default the desire to eliminate other tribes, unless, of course, an alien element is deemed perjudicial for said preservation, in which case the affected have all the right to retaliate if the survival of their society becomes compromised.
The only ideology I'd like to see survive over the long term is one of tolerance for the fact that people are different and that we must accept some of those differences in order to get along. Sure, divide up into units as we see fit, but respect the rights of the adjacent ones to also exist. If we can't manage to pervasively develop that attitude as a species then we are doomed to fight wars forever, and with the steady improvement of our technology for killing each other that trend is a recipe for disaster, if not near extinction. We can't afford to let our conflicts grow without bounds.
I think you're misunderstanding the whole point. We can split up according to the tribal principle and still get along with our neighbours in a way that the current economics / profit driven societies would never dream of achieving. If organic societies are all about preservation, then conflicts with other tribes should be kept to a minimum, specially if their goals are the same, the only exception being the case I pointed previously. The current order, on the other hand, is about comsuming all available resources, and because of that it depends on principles like internationalism and imperialism to satisfy that urge, and that kind of interventionism is bound to produce more wars and destruction than any society based on preservation.
You sound serious, but when I read this I had to wonder whether you were pulling my leg. If the US views itself as composed of generic people, why is such a big fuss made about Obama being black? How many Canadians do you think don't know that Quebec separatists exist? How many Russians don't know that Russia contains a number of republics with their own titular nationality? How many Brits don't know the difference between England and the UK? And leaving aside your examples, isn't the nature of an "imperial" nation-state that it contains multiple cultural or ethnic groups?
I think what he meant with that comment is that the so-called 'nation-states of an imperial nature' have to impose ideologies like multiculturalism and racial egalitarism in order to themselves preserve their unity, the societies within them seeing their inhabitants as 'generic', not in the literal, physical sense, but in the omission of all cultural and racial differences.
Which explains why those societies try their best to deny or put a negative context on the examples you just named.
Slashdot Mirror
Arguments that lead nowhere, proposing no solutions and draining your energy while giving you no new knowledge are brain spam too, and unfortunately, we have too much of those in modern life. Just say no spam.
Just look at any set of siblings, who can range from smart to dumb-as-rocks, from beautiful to homely, from athletic to klutz, all with the same genes.
That happens because they don't have the same genes. Genetic recombinations between the same two subjects (mom and dad) don't occur the same way each time. On the contrary, they tend to be quite chaotic and unpredictable. Read more here: http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=138
If what you are saying is true ... then humanity is doomed unless it can get beyond the kind of tribalism that, in my opinion, may be comforting to people in the tribe, but is far more trouble than it is worth. Far too often tribes decide their neighbors should be exterminated because they are different, or they decide that already-resident "invaders" in their tribe should be pushed out or eliminated ("ethnic cleansing"). I understand why this happens, but it's ultimately stupid, because I think it undermines our long-term prospects for survival as a species (see below).
It seems that you're a bit confused - 'tribalism' is about preserving certain ethnicities and the environment of which they are a part of and it doesn't imply by default the desire to eliminate other tribes, unless, of course, an alien element is deemed perjudicial for said preservation, in which case the affected have all the right to retaliate if the survival of their society becomes compromised.
The only ideology I'd like to see survive over the long term is one of tolerance for the fact that people are different and that we must accept some of those differences in order to get along. Sure, divide up into units as we see fit, but respect the rights of the adjacent ones to also exist. If we can't manage to pervasively develop that attitude as a species then we are doomed to fight wars forever, and with the steady improvement of our technology for killing each other that trend is a recipe for disaster, if not near extinction. We can't afford to let our conflicts grow without bounds.
I think you're misunderstanding the whole point. We can split up according to the tribal principle and still get along with our neighbours in a way that the current economics / profit driven societies would never dream of achieving. If organic societies are all about preservation, then conflicts with other tribes should be kept to a minimum, specially if their goals are the same, the only exception being the case I pointed previously. The current order, on the other hand, is about comsuming all available resources, and because of that it depends on principles like internationalism and imperialism to satisfy that urge, and that kind of interventionism is bound to produce more wars and destruction than any society based on preservation.
You sound serious, but when I read this I had to wonder whether you were pulling my leg. If the US views itself as composed of generic people, why is such a big fuss made about Obama being black? How many Canadians do you think don't know that Quebec separatists exist? How many Russians don't know that Russia contains a number of republics with their own titular nationality? How many Brits don't know the difference between England and the UK? And leaving aside your examples, isn't the nature of an "imperial" nation-state that it contains multiple cultural or ethnic groups?
I think what he meant with that comment is that the so-called 'nation-states of an imperial nature' have to impose ideologies like multiculturalism and racial egalitarism in order to themselves preserve their unity, the societies within them seeing their inhabitants as 'generic', not in the literal, physical sense, but in the omission of all cultural and racial differences. Which explains why those societies try their best to deny or put a negative context on the examples you just named.